Open Source More Expensive In the Long Run?

Jack William Bell asks: "Could the PHBs possibly be right on this one? A recent evaluation I performed of competing commercial and Open Source products yielded the surprising result that the Open Source products were more expensive (in terms of lifetime costs) over a long term than many of the commercial offerings! Why? Basically this mostly revolves around higher support costs for Open Source products where no commercial support is available (unlike, say, Linux where you can purchase support from Red Hat, etc). This particular case might also be a result of one special set of requirements and environment and a similar evaluation for a different set of requirements and environment might yield a different outcome. But, nonetheless I found the experience instructive and I would like to ask two questions of the Slashdot readership: Firstly, is Open Source usually more expensive when all lifetime costs are factored in? And, secondly, is anyone in the business of providing commercial support and training for the entire universe of Open Source, perhaps contracting on a product-by-product basis? I guess a corollary to that question is, if not then why not? There might be a viable business model here!"

"Here are some details for you:

I am currently doing consulting work to create a complex custom search utility for a governmental agency. The first major step was, of course, to select a Search Engine that provides as many of the custom requirement features as possible; thus reducing the amount of custom code and my expensive time. Besides high-end search features my customer also required something that was fast, easily administered and likely to be supported for a very long time. Why the last? Well, the expected lifetime of the new project is ten years and this is not out of line considering that their current system is more than a generation old!

Consider again the environment; this is a government agency and is somewhat resource starved. They have a limited number of staff and the staff must split their time among many different working areas. They must be generalists and do not have time to specialize. Plus there is some turnover, especially among the better skilled staff. These factors lead to a basic requirement that there is someone they can call for support for every product they use, preferably 24 x 7. They also need to know that this support will be available for the entire lifetime of the project -- in this case a full decade.

Now to the chase -- without going into boring details, or names, we were able to locate nearly sixty Search Engines that might be suitable. Most of these were commercial, but some were Open Source. From this list we selected eight that seemed most likely to provide all the capabilities we needed, of which one was Open Source (in fact this was actually two variations of the same project). We then performed detailed paper analyses of these products, comparing features to our requirements list and doing some estimated per-year costs to determine the lifetime costs. From the results of this we selected a smaller number for in-house evaluation and from that we selected the final recommendation.

For the commercial products the vendors could supply us with support costs, often broken down in such a way we could choose our support like a Chinese menu. But for the Open Source products this was not the case. Contacting the maintainers of the Open Source products and asking if anyone provided commercial support was fruitless; in one case the response was downright rude (basically a variation on RTFM) and in the other the response was more helpful, but still could not suggest anything other than being active on the mailing list.

So I had to figure in the cost of one of my customer's IT staff staying active on that list and learning enough about the product to provide in-house support supplemented by the email list. Estimating this at one tenth of an FTE and that FTE at a low $80,000 per year resolved to $8,000 per year. This was nearly three times the cost of the most expensive commercial product support!

When factored in with equal administration costs, adding in training and support (available from these vendors) and other one-time and yearly costs (for such things as licenses), the commercial products were more expensive for the first four to six years of lifetime costs, after which the Open Source product became more expensive. Of course the difference wasn't too great, ranging from 20% to 60% higher in a ten-year lifetime. But it was there nonetheless.

Now my customers are not averse to using an Open Source product. After all, there is no guarantee that even the most established vendor will not fall by the wayside in those ten years. They just want to have a certain comfort level, even if it is illusory. And I must admit that any commercial product will require some time from their IT staff, but because there is 'support' available this is seen as being much less important. Major fixes or changes can be dealt with by hiring consultants like myself, and lesser issues dealt with by calling customer support. They might even be right in this estimation.

My estimates might have other holes as well, but that isn't germane. The selection process is nearly complete now and, in a detailed analysis the Open Source products turned out to be missing a couple of features that would have been showstoppers even had support been available. I want to know what resources I can use to (honestly) avoid this issue the next time I am comparing Open Source to commercial software for a client!"

Comments

OSS phone support

[Tablizer]

"Hello, welcome to Open Source Phone Support. Press One to listen to the fucken manual. Press Two to get a fax of the fucken manual. Press Three to get email of the fucken manual. Penguin T-shirts are currently on sale for five-ninety-nine. Proceeds go to improving the fucken manuals. Please stay on hold if you wish to purchase one. Oh, and by the way, don't forget to read the fucken manual before you call again. Have a nice day."

Re:One benefit

[DunbarTheInept]

In fact, you can probably count the amount of "successful" OSS projects on 1 hand.

1. Apache
2. XFree86
3. Linux kernel
4. FreeBSD kernel
5. Gnome

Damn, I ran out of fingers. Let's try the other hand.

1. KDE
2. Mozilla
3. ReiserFS
4. The TCP/IP stack itself, typically implemented in most OS'es off of BSD's source, including even Windows.
5. RCS and CVS

Okay, Hold on, let me take my shoes off. Sorry about the smell...

1. This little piggy runs DNS Bind
2. This little piggy firewalls with Drawbridge
3. This little piggy edits text with vim
4. This little piggy edits text with emacs
5. This little piggy runs sendmail (yeah, it sucks compared to newer mail daemons, but it most certainly counts as "successful".)

Now the other foot:

1. This little piggy uses gcc.
2. This little piggy uses Perl.
3. This little piggy uses bash or tcsh.
4. This little piggy uses Python.
5. And This little piggy uses Slashcode to claim Open Source projects aren't very successful.

Okay, I'd better stop. I've almost run out of appendages and you really don't want me to use the twenty-first one.